Comments and Conclusions

Here are my impressions. Note that the 7200x4800 film scan image will take you to the relevant image on Flickr and you can download it or view it there by clicking on the 'All Sizes' option.The links in the left column take you to a framed page that is best viewed in Firefox.

The digital image is a clear winner in terms of sharpness, though I think the lighter exposure on film creates a more balanced photo. The different exposure results in certain details being clearer on film and others being better on digital. For example, the windows in the house appear to have net curtains on the film image but this may just be the effect of grain - I'm not certain even looking at the original scan. However, the sign on the children's play area is over-exposed on film, whereas you can discern some detail on the digital image.EQUAL

The digital image shows much more detail than the film scan.Worthwhile details: the fence at far left, the notice board on the play-park, the tops of the trees, and the connecting barrel in the middle of the climbing frame.Digital Win

Not much to choose between them in sharpness, but I think the colour details are better on film. Have a look at the light reflections on the red cars, the brick work on the quay near the water, and the two wooden benches to the left of the grey car. 35mm Film Win

Sharpness and detail are better on digital, but the colour tones look better on the film scan. In particular, where have the clouds gone on the digital photo ?It does appear that the sun is edging behind a cloud on the digital shot; otherwise I'd have to give this one to the film.EQUAL

The difference in exposure makes it hard to evaluate these two. However, the film is clearly better at coping with the backlit tree than the digital which show complete white-out.If you look close to the base of the tree on the digital image where it backlit by the reflection off the water, it appears to narrow. There's also a fair bit of purple fringing (which is mainly a lens effect).35mm Film Win

I'm surprised how different these images are. Surprisingly, the digital camera has coped much better with the range of light conditions through shade to sunlit areas. The film image looks harsh and the sunlit areas are washed out.Digital Win

Exposures are quite different again, though the digital image will take more alteration in xnview to match the look of the film version than vice-versa. The digital image has more detail and generally looks sharper so it's another..Digital Win

I was really pleased with the photo taken on digital but they couldn't get a sensible scan of the film one unfortunately. If you read some comparisons, long exposures are supposed to be something that film does really well, but this isn't my experience.Digital Win

I expected the film to do well here, and it did preserve the lace curtains which are white-outs on the digital version. However, the film image was under-exposed and had to be brightened considerably, so this will have contributed to the retention of the lace curtains. Digital is a clear winner when you zoom to 100%.Digital Win

The writing is on the wall (literally !) - the digital image can resolve the 'LADIES' sign between the two red doors. However the film looks pretty good as well - the bricks and slates have nice textures (though this could just be a grain effect)Digital Win

So there you have it; six ties, three better captures on film, and nineteen photos that I think are better on digital. That said, I am a bit rusty at using film, and no doubt it would be possible to get better scans of some of the film negatives individually. On the other hand, I can get similar images on digital with a faster ISO setting, and I would expect the film to suffer increased grain with a faster film. A comparison with 400ASA film(*) would probably be a lot more one-sided in favour of digital, whereas 50ASA Velvia might have performed better than the digital camera's minimum 80ISO. I don't think this is that realistic however - some of my images suffered in the comparison due to lack of depth of field on the 35mm SLR. Ideally, I would have liked to have been using a higher f-stop to increase the depth of field but this would be even harder with a slower film.

* I realise I'm being inconsistent here since 100ASA = 100ISO, but before digital we always referred to 'ASA' for film speeds, and nowadays we only speak about ISO settings for digital cameras !

A couple of the images highlighted the digital camera's wide depth of field. This is due to the sensor size being significantly smaller than a 35mm film negative. If you repeated the exercise with a digital SLR, the sensor size would be a closer match to the film and the depth of field similarly reduced at large apertures. It's also likely that a dSLR would show higher definition and less noise since the larger sensor would improve both and a shorter zoom or fixed lens would be expected to perform better than the SX20 IS's 20X optical zoom.

One person has commented that the film scans would be better if done individually on a Nikon film scanner, or by professional drum scanning. I'm sure this is true, though I still doubt it would be that significant in terms of detail levels. The suggested scanner costs about £1500 in the UK, and drum scanning seems to come in at around £15 per negative - a bit beyond the scope of this article! Nevertheless, if I get the chance to have a few of the negatives rescanned on better equipment, I'll add these examples too.

This exercise has demonstrated to me that film really isn't dead. Who knows, I may even run another film though my trusty old st705w some time in the future!